Welcome to CreditBoards!

Welcome to CreditBoards! Like most online communities, you must register to post in our community, but don't worry - this is a simple process requiring minimal information for you to sign up. Be a part of CreditBoards by signing in or creating an account.

Advice on 2 med collections

Evening everyone.
I've been reading the board for awhile but have just started cleaning things up. I had 3 dings on my reports.
2 were medical collections from 2008 and 1 was an obsolete TL on TU that was reaged.

I successfully had the obsolete tradeline removed from TRansUnion. Long story short, it was from 2001 but the bank re-aged it in 2008.
I had copies of my credit report from 2006 and 2007 and sent those along with my dispute. TU removed it in about 10 days

The other two items, were for $50 copay assigned to 2 different agencies, NCO and CBSJ (which is now Account recovery Bureau).
I sent a PFD to both offering to pay in full for deletion using a letter I believe I found here.
I made sure not to accept responsibility for the debt, only offering to pay as a convenience. I also did not state that the CA could not call me any longer as I thought that was a bit too threatening to start.
I kind of wish I had left that in the CBSJ letter

I just recieved a letter from NCO, that looks like an acceptance letter. It basically says:
thanks for contacting us about the account, we can take the full amount provided it is paid by 3/10.
In addition, we have contact the credit bureau's which we do business and have asked they delete the record.
Please be advised that NCO can not effect a change by any other company which may report the same account"

I pulled my Transunion report and the NCO line item is definitely removed. Does this sound like a legit acceptance letter?
I'm concerned that after I pay NCO will either re-report the item or sells it before I get to pay.

I have not received a response from CBSJ but now they are calling my cell once a day with the recording. The recording has changed now to ask for a particular person tho.
I am debating on whether I should start the Whychat process with them or try to get the hospital to pull the account back from CBSJ.
My feeling is that the hospital will be less responsive since I had 2 collections from them, plus I also don't want to hurt the chances of Whychat's process to work.

Suggestions?

My other concern is that the SOL looks to be about ready to expire on it. My credit report shows last payment as 4/22/2008. Should I leave things be for 2 months just in case?

Along those lines, I read somewhere that the new FICO scoring doesn't take into account collections less than $100. Is there any truth to this?

A question on theory.
I understand the purpose of the initial dispute with the CRA is to confirm a current business relationship between CA and OC. I also get that one wants to confirm the debt and amount and even that there are times when the CRA will just delete (which is more hit and miss). Are there any other legal reasons for the initial dispute with the CRA?

It seems like there's a lot of problems with redisputing with the CRA, especially EX who will refuse to reinvestigate.
Unless I'm misreading things, the HIPAA violations typically occur when the CA updates the the tradeline to paid since they no longer have a valid business reason to report the item.

If one is ABSOLUTELY sure of the amount, that it is their debt, and there is a current business relationship between the OC and CA, would it be better to not dispute with the CRA first? Not disputing with the CRA would leave that option open for after. Since the CA would not have a valid reason to the records they could not validate?

If I'm missing something, would you mind taking a minute to tell me what I'm missing?

A question on theory. I understand the purpose of the initial dispute with the CRA is to confirm a current business relationship between CA and OC. I also get that one wants to confirm the debt and amount and even that there are times when the CRA will just delete (which is more hit and miss). Are there any other legal reasons for the initial dispute with the CRA?

It seems like there's a lot of problems with redisputing with the CRA, especially EX who will refuse to reinvestigate. Unless I'm misreading things, the HIPAA violations typically occur when the CA updates the the tradeline to paid since they no longer have a valid business reason to report the item.

If one is ABSOLUTELY sure of the amount, that it is their debt, and there is a current business relationship between the OC and CA, would it be better to not dispute with the CRA first? Not disputing with the CRA would leave that option open for after. Since the CA would not have a valid reason to the records they could not validate?

If I'm missing something, would you mind taking a minute to tell me what I'm missing?

CAs get their accounts in 3 ways, Primary CAs get them assigned directly from the OC, Secondary CAs get them assigned/sold to them by primary CAs, JDBs ( junk debt buyers) CAs who are also referred to as "GARBAGE" CAs, get their accounts from data miners.

On a fairly new account, ie date of service within 1 year, you can be reasonably sure that this is a primary CA, when you send the initial dispute letter to the CRA(s) the primary CA will respond and you have documentation of a current business relationship. On older accounts, a secondary CA would not have the same current business relationship and although the CRA may "verify", paying the OC will do no good as they are NOT in a current business relationship with the reporting CA, in THIS case, follow up medical DVs are required to get a deletion. In the case of JDBs, the initial dispute will usually get you a deletion.

CAs get their accounts in 3 ways, Primary CAs get them assigned directly from the OC, Secondary CAs get them assigned/sold to them by primary CAs, JDBs ( junk debt buyers) CAs who are also referred to as "GARBAGE" CAs, get their accounts from data miners.

On a fairly new account, ie date of service within 1 year, you can be reasonably sure that this is a primary CA, when you send the initial dispute letter to the CRA(s) the primary CA will respond and you have documentation of a current business relationship. On older accounts, a secondary CA would not have the same current business relationship and although the CRA may "verify", paying the OC will do no good as they are NOT in a current business relationship with the reporting CA, in THIS case, follow up medical DVs are required to get a deletion. In the case of JDBs, the initial dispute will usually get you a deletion.

Thanks for the explanation. That does make sense. In my case, I know the CA in question is the primary CA even thou it's been almost 4 years. I've had other dealings with this particular CA and I am reasonably certain that the CA and OC are in a current business relationship.

A different attack vector, what if one only initially disputed thru EQ and or TU but not EX? Couldn't someone go back after going thru the whole process and dispute thru EX? EX would not be able to deny the dispute and the CA wouldn't be able to validate because they have no business reason to have the records? Just a thought.

CAs get their accounts in 3 ways, Primary CAs get them assigned directly from the OC, Secondary CAs get them assigned/sold to them by primary CAs, JDBs ( junk debt buyers) CAs who are also referred to as "GARBAGE" CAs, get their accounts from data miners.

On a fairly new account, ie date of service within 1 year, you can be reasonably sure that this is a primary CA, when you send the initial dispute letter to the CRA(s) the primary CA will respond and you have documentation of a current business relationship. On older accounts, a secondary CA would not have the same current business relationship and although the CRA may "verify", paying the OC will do no good as they are NOT in a current business relationship with the reporting CA, in THIS case, follow up medical DVs are required to get a deletion. In the case of JDBs, the initial dispute will usually get you a deletion.

Let me rephrase this a different way. If the only purpose for the initial dispute to the CRA's is to establish a current relationship between OC and CA, how would it jeapardize the process by DV'ing the CA's without the initial dispute to CRA if one is sure of a current business relationship? Does the dispute to CRA set a legal foundation in order for the HIPAA dispute to proceed?

CAs get their accounts in 3 ways, Primary CAs get them assigned directly from the OC, Secondary CAs get them assigned/sold to them by primary CAs, JDBs ( junk debt buyers) CAs who are also referred to as "GARBAGE" CAs, get their accounts from data miners.

On a fairly new account, ie date of service within 1 year, you can be reasonably sure that this is a primary CA, when you send the initial dispute letter to the CRA(s) the primary CA will respond and you have documentation of a current business relationship. On older accounts, a secondary CA would not have the same current business relationship and although the CRA may "verify", paying the OC will do no good as they are NOT in a current business relationship with the reporting CA, in THIS case, follow up medical DVs are required to get a deletion. In the case of JDBs, the initial dispute will usually get you a deletion.

Let me rephrase this a different way. If the only purpose for the initial dispute to the CRA's is to establish a current relationship between OC and CA, how would it jeapardize the process by DV'ing the CA's without the initial dispute to CRA if one is sure of a current business relationship? Does the dispute to CRA set a legal foundation in order for the HIPAA dispute to proceed?

No, the dispute to the CA interferes with the entire HIPAA letter program as the payment to the OC is based on NO CONTACT between the debtor and the CA.

Now, if you want to communicate with the CA and "self validate" the account on your reports, go ahead. You can then pay the CA and get a "paid" collection CEMENTED to your reports.

Let me rephrase this a different way. If the only purpose for the initial dispute to the CRA's is to establish a current relationship between OC and CA, how would it jeapardize the process by DV'ing the CA's without the initial dispute to CRA if one is sure of a current business relationship? Does the dispute to CRA set a legal foundation in order for the HIPAA dispute to proceed?

No, the dispute to the CA interferes with the entire HIPAA letter program as the payment to the OC is based on NO CONTACT between the debtor and the CA.

Now, if you want to communicate with the CA and "self validate" the account on your reports, go ahead. You can then pay the CA and get a "paid" collection CEMENTED to your reports.

But isn't the second step in the process to send DV's to the CA after the dispute comes back? How is that not contact between the debtor and CA?

And no, I do not want this to be cemented to my report. I'm just trying to understand the process and how it works. The process is basically a recipe (for bread as an example). I'm trying to understand how all the pieces work together to come to the final product, ( i.e how the yeast intereacts with the other ingredients to make the loaf rise and be fluffy)

Or is the DV to the CA only needed if the CRA comes back with a "contact CA directly"?

The whole reason I'm even going thru the process was to try and qualify for an FHA. My scores were ~660 before NCO deleted the one so I think I'm in really good shape. REmoving the last one should put me over 700 tho. From what I'm reading, starting a dispute with a CRA could actually do more harm at this point because the dispute would have to clear before closing.

Let me rephrase this a different way. If the only purpose for the initial dispute to the CRA's is to establish a current relationship between OC and CA, how would it jeapardize the process by DV'ing the CA's without the initial dispute to CRA if one is sure of a current business relationship? Does the dispute to CRA set a legal foundation in order for the HIPAA dispute to proceed?

No, the dispute to the CA interferes with the entire HIPAA letter program as the payment to the OC is based on NO CONTACT between the debtor and the CA.

Now, if you want to communicate with the CA and "self validate" the account on your reports, go ahead. You can then pay the CA and get a "paid" collection CEMENTED to your reports.

But isn't the second step in the process to send DV's to the CA after the dispute comes back? How is that not contact between the debtor and CA?

And no, I do not want this to be cemented to my report. I'm just trying to understand the process and how it works. The process is basically a recipe (for bread as an example). I'm trying to understand how all the pieces work together to come to the final product, ( i.e how the yeast intereacts with the other ingredients to make the loaf rise and be fluffy)

Or is the DV to the CA only needed if the CRA comes back with a "contact CA directly"?

The whole reason I'm even going thru the process was to try and qualify for an FHA. My scores were ~660 before NCO deleted the one so I think I'm in really good shape. REmoving the last one should put me over 700 tho. From what I'm reading, starting a dispute with a CRA could actually do more harm at this point because the dispute would have to clear before closing.

Do what you want. I do not know why you think that a dispute to the CRAs would affect your closing.

Let me rephrase this a different way. If the only purpose for the initial dispute to the CRA's is to establish a current relationship between OC and CA, how would it jeapardize the process by DV'ing the CA's without the initial dispute to CRA if one is sure of a current business relationship? Does the dispute to CRA set a legal foundation in order for the HIPAA dispute to proceed?

No, the dispute to the CA interferes with the entire HIPAA letter program as the payment to the OC is based on NO CONTACT between the debtor and the CA.

Now, if you want to communicate with the CA and "self validate" the account on your reports, go ahead. You can then pay the CA and get a "paid" collection CEMENTED to your reports.

But isn't the second step in the process to send DV's to the CA after the dispute comes back? How is that not contact between the debtor and CA?

And no, I do not want this to be cemented to my report. I'm just trying to understand the process and how it works. The process is basically a recipe (for bread as an example). I'm trying to understand how all the pieces work together to come to the final product, ( i.e how the yeast intereacts with the other ingredients to make the loaf rise and be fluffy)

Or is the DV to the CA only needed if the CRA comes back with a "contact CA directly"?

The whole reason I'm even going thru the process was to try and qualify for an FHA. My scores were ~660 before NCO deleted the one so I think I'm in really good shape. REmoving the last one should put me over 700 tho. From what I'm reading, starting a dispute with a CRA could actually do more harm at this point because the dispute would have to clear before closing.

Do what you want. I do not know why you think that a dispute to the CRAs would affect your closing.

Supposedly lenders won't close if the account is labeled as "in dispute"

Let me rephrase this a different way. If the only purpose for the initial dispute to the CRA's is to establish a current relationship between OC and CA, how would it jeapardize the process by DV'ing the CA's without the initial dispute to CRA if one is sure of a current business relationship? Does the dispute to CRA set a legal foundation in order for the HIPAA dispute to proceed?

No, the dispute to the CA interferes with the entire HIPAA letter program as the payment to the OC is based on NO CONTACT between the debtor and the CA.

Now, if you want to communicate with the CA and "self validate" the account on your reports, go ahead. You can then pay the CA and get a "paid" collection CEMENTED to your reports.

But isn't the second step in the process to send DV's to the CA after the dispute comes back? How is that not contact between the debtor and CA?

And no, I do not want this to be cemented to my report. I'm just trying to understand the process and how it works. The process is basically a recipe (for bread as an example). I'm trying to understand how all the pieces work together to come to the final product, ( i.e how the yeast intereacts with the other ingredients to make the loaf rise and be fluffy)

Or is the DV to the CA only needed if the CRA comes back with a "contact CA directly"?

The whole reason I'm even going thru the process was to try and qualify for an FHA. My scores were ~660 before NCO deleted the one so I think I'm in really good shape. REmoving the last one should put me over 700 tho. From what I'm reading, starting a dispute with a CRA could actually do more harm at this point because the dispute would have to clear before closing.

Do what you want. I do not know why you think that a dispute to the CRAs would affect your closing.

Supposedly lenders won't close if the account is labeled as "in dispute"Well, if a lender sees an account on your reports that IS NOT in dispute, it would certainly be more adverse, I think you are reaching for spurious reasons to do whatever you had planned on doing anyway.

But isn't the second step in the process to send DV's to the CA after the dispute comes back? How is that not contact between the debtor and CA?

And no, I do not want this to be cemented to my report. I'm just trying to understand the process and how it works. The process is basically a recipe (for bread as an example). I'm trying to understand how all the pieces work together to come to the final product, ( i.e how the yeast intereacts with the other ingredients to make the loaf rise and be fluffy)

Or is the DV to the CA only needed if the CRA comes back with a "contact CA directly"?

The whole reason I'm even going thru the process was to try and qualify for an FHA. My scores were ~660 before NCO deleted the one so I think I'm in really good shape. REmoving the last one should put me over 700 tho. From what I'm reading, starting a dispute with a CRA could actually do more harm at this point because the dispute would have to clear before closing.

Do what you want. I do not know why you think that a dispute to the CRAs would affect your closing.

Supposedly lenders won't close if the account is labeled as "in dispute"Well, if a lender sees an account on your reports that IS NOT in dispute, it would certainly be more adverse, I think you are reaching for spurious reasons to do whatever you had planned on doing anyway.

But isn't the second step in the process to send DV's to the CA after the dispute comes back? How is that not contact between the debtor and CA?

And no, I do not want this to be cemented to my report. I'm just trying to understand the process and how it works. The process is basically a recipe (for bread as an example). I'm trying to understand how all the pieces work together to come to the final product, ( i.e how the yeast intereacts with the other ingredients to make the loaf rise and be fluffy)

Or is the DV to the CA only needed if the CRA comes back with a "contact CA directly"?

The whole reason I'm even going thru the process was to try and qualify for an FHA. My scores were ~660 before NCO deleted the one so I think I'm in really good shape. REmoving the last one should put me over 700 tho. From what I'm reading, starting a dispute with a CRA could actually do more harm at this point because the dispute would have to clear before closing.

Do what you want. I do not know why you think that a dispute to the CRAs would affect your closing.

Supposedly lenders won't close if the account is labeled as "in dispute"Well, if a lender sees an account on your reports that IS NOT in dispute, it would certainly be more adverse, I think you are reaching for spurious reasons to do whatever you had planned on doing anyway.

Then you are saying that the advice in the morgage forums is wrong?Mortgage not to do'sThe poster in this started here 7 days ago, much of what he says is just fluff, as to "disputing disputes" there is absolutely NO reason or sense to what he is saying. If you are going to be taking advice from ANYONE on ANY forum, check to make sure they aren't "newbies"and a case studyThis poster stated correctly that it is a BIG mistake to dispute ONLINESure, seeing an ONE open collection for $50 isn't a positive, but I'm reading lots of other folks on here who've gotten an FHA loan with worse CR's and Open Collections than I have.

I'm looking for the fastest and most reliable way to remove 1 collection from my report. If you wanted to buy a house, would you not question every move you make to be sure it is the correct one?

Then you are saying that the advice in the morgage forums is wrong?Mortgage not to do'sThe poster in this started here 7 days ago, much of what he says is just fluff, as to "disputing disputes" there is absolutely NO reason or sense to what he is saying. If you are going to be taking advice from ANYONE on ANY forum, check to make sure they aren't "newbies"and a case studyThis poster stated correctly that it is a BIG mistake to dispute ONLINE

And 3 posts down, someone else posts "My mortgage guy says he can't put us into underwriting until notations are removed. We are supposed to close in 10 days & I can't figure out how to get them off"

Which was then replied by STAFF who not only tells the poster how to remove, but that the mprtgage broker should have told them up front.(Quote)Mortgage guy should have known upfront - here are some notes on how to attack these - If it is a conventional loan they cannot be thereif it is fha/VA you would have to go manual underwrite and lose the extras that come with an automated approval(endQuote)

Sure, seeing an ONE open collection for $50 isn't a positive, but I'm reading lots of other folks on here who've gotten an FHA loan with worse CR's and Open Collections than I have.

I'm looking for the fastest and most reliable way to remove 1 collection from my report. If you wanted to buy a house, would you not question every move you make to be sure it is the correct one?

I'm not trying to get into a pissing match with you. I'm only trying to gain an understanding of the theory behind the process and why it will fall apart if B is done but not A. Every time I ask, I get the runaround or a cut and paste "do this first". From what I've seen, you've been answering these questions for a long time. I'm sure my questions sound exactly like fifty gazillion other questions you've been asked over the last few years and I'm sure it's tiring to have to answer the same question over and over. But heck if the website had more theory as to why you need to do this step or that instead ofsend this letter here, now send that letter there, you'd have less silly questions all the time.